Why You Can Now Kiss Organic Beef, Dairy and Many Vegetables Goodbye

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Ari LeVaux

Why You Can Now Kiss Organic Beef, Dairy and Many Vegetables Goodbye
The USDA ruled that farmers are now free to plant GE alfalfa, and USDA won't even keep track of who plants it where. The implications are huge.

January 28, 2011 |


Monsanto has been trying for years to gain approval for its genetically modified Roundup-Ready alfalfa seed. On January 27, 2011, it finally got the green light in the form of "deregulation." This means that farmers are free to plant GE alfalfa, and the USDA won't even be keeping track of who plants it where. There will be no tracking, no notification system, and no responsibility on the part of Monsanto for any business that is lost as a result of the genetic contamination that is certain to result. If the ruling stands, we can kiss organic dairy and beef goodbye, and many organic vegetable growers will have to switch the cover crops they use on their fields.

The Center for Food Safety is planning on dragging the issue back to court, where the organization has a good track record in recent years against Monsanto, even in the notoriously business-friendly U.S. Supreme Court, which in June upheld a ban on the planting of Roundup-Ready alfalfa until the USDA drafts an environmental impact statement (EIS).

The EIS was dutifully drafted and released in December 2010. The document airs the concerns expressed by the vast majority of the 200,000-plus comments on GE alfalfa, yet somehow concludes: "...consumer preferences for organic over GE foods are influenced in part by ethical and environmental factors that are likely unrelated to minor unintended presence of GE content in feed crops."

That's quite a use of the word "likely": When the organic rules were drafted in 1997, Big Ag tried very, very hard to include GE products in organic-labeled foods. In response to this attempt, USDA received over 275,000 comments against GE in organics. It was the largest number of comments USDA had ever received on a single issue. How USDA managed to conclude that consumers of organic food are likely unconcerned by contamination of organic products is a mystery -- at least, until we recall that Tom Vilsack, Obama's agriculture boss, used to fly around in a Monsanto corporate jet while governor of Iowa. During that same period he was also named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Council. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/food/149716/why_you_can_now_kiss_organic_beef%2C_dairy_and_many_vegetables_goodbye/

[derby378]

1. Just think - Vilsack actually wanted to be President

Granted, Obama's not going to lift a finger to do anything about this, but things could have been worse in 2008.

[handmade34]

2. thanks for posting...serious concern... we must do more than

just bitch about it...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x296807

[CrispyQ]

3. They've been attacking the organic standards for years.

Diminish the standards so big business can make profit on the word 'organic.' Who cares if it's really organic, in our up-is-down world.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[earcandle]

5. This is stupid and disgusting.

[russspeakeasy]

30. Yes, but very profitable.

[madrchsod]

6. another democrat(?) bought by monsanto....

you have to buy their seeds or they will bankrupt you.

more change we can believe in

[FogerRox]

7. this will establish a monoculture, Attending Rutgers Univ we were taught

Monocultures were inherently prone to failure, because just one pathogen (insect or fungus) can take out the whole crop.

KnR, wholeheartedly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It will only establish a monoculture if everyone starts using it, and plants no other type

Are you saying that's it's so marvellous that all farmers will choose it over everything else?

[saras]

9. Of course not

We're saying that it's already established scientific fact that it contaminates things growing around it, so farmers will end up growing it even if they treat their own land organically.

And that's completely separate from the fact that, if the majority of corporate-owned factory farms adopt it, that the choices of individual farmers with different opinions will be a tiny, irrelevant side issue.

And that's completely separate from the fact that the vast majority of processed food is made with raw materials from factory farms, not the products of the individual farmers who don't grow it. Additionally, if the manufacturing process mixes GM and non-GM raw ingredients, the choices of the farmers who don't use it are again rendered irrelevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. So that would be lots of new hybrids, not a monoculture, wouldn't it?

You'd have the existing varieties, the pure GM variety, and hybrids between the existing ones and the GM one. Potentially, you could end up with twice as many varieties as now.

[FogerRox]

14. no,

We dont know if those hybrids are even desirable, number one, and a patented GE plant is owned by a corporation, farmers have been taken to court over GE pollen that got into their non GE fields.

Organic farms tend to like heritage seeds developed over centuries, this is where the most variety in the gene pool exists.

Some GE seeds dont produce viable seeds that can be used to plant the next year, so Farmers that use GE seeds need to buy new each year, this will maintain a very large scale monoculture that will be susceptible to a single failure component.


GE seeds are all patented, all proprietary, the legal implications so far are that is if GE pollen gets in you non GE field you can be forced to pay, or plow your field under.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. So, if they produce hybrids, it's not a monoculture

and if the GE plants don't produce viable seeds, then you'll only get a monoculture if all the farmers buy it and never used any other seeds - which they'll only do if these plants are superior to all the others.

As far as people being sued for their crops getting pollinated by someone else's GE pollen - the 2 cases I can find both ended up in the farmer winning, so I'd think Monsanto and similar companies aren't suing now:

Monsanto sued Nelson and his family in 1999 for patent infringement, charging they had saved Roundup Ready soybean seeds on their 8,000-acre farm. Two years of legal hell ensued, Nelson said. The matter ended with an out of court settlement that he is forbidden to talk about. "We won, but we feel forever tainted."
...
In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbour's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service155.htm

If Monsanto are still suing people in this way, then I think the law needs to be changed; but from what I can see, the law had been decided, in both Canada and the USA, that the farmers did not need to pay anything.

[yellowcanine]

28. Actually a field of a hybrid variety is more of a monoculture than an open - pollinated variety.

Every plant is exactly like the next. That is one of the advantages of hybrid varieties. The plants are all the same height, they mature at the same time, etc. (assuming the same environment of course) This made hybrid corn ideal for machine harvest. It is one of the reasons why hybrid corn caught on so fast - that and the superior yields. It is also why the U.S. corn crop was severely damaged by Southern Corn Blight in 1970. Even though there were a number of different hybrid varieties planted, they had all been developed using the same male-sterile cytoplasm, which happened to be susceptible to the disease. So from the standpoint of the disease, the whole corn crop in the U.S. was one giant monoculture.

I think you might be confusing "hybridization" and "hybrid variety". There is a relationship, in that hybridization is used to produce hybrid varieties but it is also used to produce non hybrid varieties. It can be confusing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. I would call a cross, via open pollination, between the GM variety and a non-GM one, as a hybrid

And that is what people frequently complain about - that GM pollen will blow to non-GM fields, and create a cross that farmers who save seed will never be able to get rid of.

I will say I'm confused by "hybridization is used to produce hybrid varieties but it is also used to produce non hybrid varieties". If a variety is 'non hybrid', ie exactly the same variety as the plants used to produce it, how can the process be called 'hybridization'?

[yellowcanine]

31. Hybrids vs OP varieties.

New varieties are often made by controlled crosses. Hybridization is another term for that - just means crossing two different individuals.
After the controlled cross there is artificial selection of offspring and either selfing or open pollination (depending on the normal method of reproduction for that species)to produce the new variety. This is kind of simplistic - there may be some other steps.

For a hybrid variety, however, the process is much different.

Two parent lines will be created by selfing them until the lines achieve genetic homogeneity. (same 2 alleles at each gene location).

Then the two parent lines are crossed to create seed that is heterogeneous at every location - that is an allele from the male parent and an allele from the female parent at every location.
However every seed has exactly the same genetic make up.
So the plants which result have the same genetic make up.
To do this it is imperative to make sure the one line is always the male parent and the other line is always the female parent. Thus with corn either one line has the tassels removed or male sterile cytoplasm is used to make female parents. The seed from the female parent ears is the seed which is sold to the farmer to plant. The seed from the ears on the male parent is not used. The male and female parents are planted in different rows so it is easy to know which is which.

If the farmer tries to save seed, the alleles at each site will segregate randomly and the genetics will be all mixed up. Thus it will not "breed true". So the farmer has to go back to the seed company each year to get hybrid seed.

What makes things even more confusing is that "hybrid" sometimes refers to crossing of two different species, such as a donkey and a horse to get a mule. In that case the hybrid often is not able to reproduce - it is sterile.

[yellowcanine]

27. They wouldn't be monocultures unless the same GE variety were planted.

The RR technology can be put into different varieties. It is likely that early on there would be few RR varieties but if it is successful it is highly likely that more would be quickly developed and released.

The main reason farmers don't save seed of GE crops is because they sign a technology agreement that says they can't. The biggest RR crop is soybeans and without the technology agreement there would be nothing to stop farmers from saving seed and planting that seed.

It is only with hybrid crops that seed can't be saved - usually not because the seeds aren't viable but because saved seed from a hybrid crop will not "breed true" - that is, you won't get the same variety that was planted originally. You will get a mish mash of plants.

[FogerRox]

16. Monsanto sells the seed and the Round up

•Roundup Ready alfalfa will substantially increase herbicide use – USDA’s assessment misrepresented conventional alfalfa as utilizing more herbicides than it does, which in turn provided a false rationale for introducing herbicide-promoting Roundup Ready alfalfa. In fact, USDA’s own data shows that just 7% of alfalfa hay acres are treated with herbicides. USDA’s projections in the FEIS show that substantial adoption of Roundup Ready alfalfa would trigger large increases in herbicide use of up to 23 million lbs. per year.

http://current.com/technology/92945029_usda-announces-full-deregulation-of-monsantos-ge-alfalfa.htm

Meanwhile the rise of Round up resistant Weeds is on the uptick over 20 yrs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

[FogerRox]

15. This is Round up resistant

"genetically modified Roundup-Ready alfalfa seed"

[defendandprotect]

11. Simply more evidence of how completely criminal our government has become ....

[xxqqqzme]

12. vilsack was a dlc chairman

just sayin'.

[era veteran]

13. Monsanto is the most evil company on the planet.

Every year the farmers have to use more roundup. The weeds are getting resistant and it's not just alfalfa either. This evil gang of corporate thugs have brought us DDT, Agent Orange, and this GM seed. Monsanto never quits poisoning us for a buck.

[FogerRox]

17. Un-like Monsanto, LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

The thing thats really stupid is that Alfalfa needs almost no weeding, thats why its a traditional cover crop for ages.

[yellowcanine]

26. Alfalfa is mostly grown as a perennial forage crop, not a "cover crop"

Most cover crops are annuals - either winter annuals or summer annuals. Alfalfa seed is way too expensive to use as a cover crop in most situations.

However, alfalfa is sometimes used as a perennial legume rotation crop although I would normally recommend red clover rather than alfalfa because the seed is a lot cheaper and it will do just as well for 2-3 years. If one wants a longer legume rotation alfalfa would be a reasonable choice.

I suspect the Roundup is mainly going to be used during the establishment year. Actually all things considered - technology fees, viable alternatives, etc, I would probably not recommend RR alfalfa - at least not until there is more data on its performance and agronomic feasibility.

[Wilms]

18. kr

[FogerRox]

19. Already Rec'ed, just Kickin

[tomp]

21. another obama fuck up: vilsack. obama=corporoatist. nt

[Fire1]

22. Well, no need to buy high priced meat anymore. n/t

[Ozagnaria]

23. everyone on the "left" and the "right"

everyone on the left and the right i know is upset about this.
I am new here and really not a left leaning person myself, I love going to all the political sites because I love politics and what to see what everyone has to say.

that being said seriously people I have seen so many people on "right wing" sites and "left wing sites" really upset over this...there are some things that the left and the right agree on and when that happens both sides need to get over their other differences and work together on them and freaking food issues should be one of them. I am telling everyone I know and most people I know are not democrats and they are HOT over this issue.

if we keep being divided by R's and D's then we are playing into their hands and a serious effort to tackle a major problem like this can never be mounted.

I get people disagree and the positions they disagree on are real and important to the persons holding those position, I can respect that. What I can not respect is when there is real agreement on an issue and no one can get together with the "other" to fix something.

I think things are getting worse and I see so much on various boards where groups of people are in agreement on an issue, but they can't get over the R or D affiliation. Unless liberals, conservatives, greens. libertarians, independents, republicans. democrats etc etc etc work together...we are so screwed because I can live without alot of things but food ain't one of them.

BTW no one I have seen likes Fascism, Authoritarian Rule, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Timocracy etc except those in charge of those systems and most people don't know what the differences are between them and any other system. Same with economic systems... I think alot of people on the right and the left are under some serious false impressions about everything regarding government and economics because a non-opinionated, filled with name calling about one side or the other (this comes from both sides imho) discussion never happens. Ironically everyone on either side thinks the other one is the bad guy. I don't think the average people in society is a "bad guy" we have to get away from that.

So greetings to all and I hope when I do contribute to the discussions here it is help and not hurtful and I will do my very best to never be hurtful or disrespectful if and when I do disagree with a post or topic. I won't really post much or often though I don't have alot of time or internet access really. but thank you to all who are working to get the word out about what is happening to the worlds food supply.

[underpants]

24. Marking for my wife to read

[yellowcanine]

25. Bit over the top. Most organic vegetable producers do not use alfalfa as a cover crop.

Furthermore, the potential for significant cross contamination is not nearly as great as it might appear. Alfalfa is a perennial crop and when it is grown as a forage crop it is harvested before it goes to seed. Thus even if a bee were to carry pollen from a GE field to an organic alfalfa field (actually quite unlikely), the pollen is not likely to result in viable seed production. The only place there might be a concern is in seed production - and even there the potential is fairly remote, given that bees generally work within a field and then fly back to the hive.

Just to be sure though, I do think that the planting of GE alfalfa should be tracked and mandatory buffer distances established between plantings of GE alfalfa and alfalfa seed production fields. With GPS technology this should be fairly easy to do. The cost of GPS locating of alfalfa seed production fields could be covered with a tax on GE alfalfa seed and just to keep things honest independent crop consultants could be paid to do the GPS location of the fields.


Note: This is quite a different kettle of fish from GE corn. Corn is an annual crop and is wind pollinated and the potential for cross contamination of seed is a lot higher.